Correcting the media on Obama’s spending record… again

posted at 10:03 pm on May 23, 2012 by Dustin Siggins

In a recent analysis on Market Watch, Rex Nutting says Americans who think there has been a large increase of federal spending under President Obama’s watch are wrong. From the analysis:

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

Varied versions of this flawed argument have already been shot down by numerous commentators, including twice by Just Facts President Jim Agresti in 2010 and earlier this month, and by Morgen Richmond and me here at Hot Air. However, Nutting takes a different angle on the discussion, and there numerous misleading or inaccurate statements he makes that require correcting. Several major points are addressed below.

First, Nutting writes, “In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.” This is inaccurate for two reasons: first, as Nutting notes in a separate chart, Obama was responsible for $140 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Therefore, insinuating that the 2009 deficit was garnered entirely under President Bush’s watch is misleading.

Second, and related, Nutting fails to place blame for a number of other spending items President Obama signed into law on the President, particularly those from the $410 billion H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. This Act, signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009, included the following:

  1. Five billion dollars worth of earmarks added by Members of Congress.
  2. A funding increase of $8.5 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the law, excluding emergency appropriations.
  3. A $31 billion increase in nine bills funding various federal agencies over FY 2008, as totaled by the U.S. Conference of Mayor.

All told, as noted by the Canada Free Press, the omnibus increased total spending in the relevant departments by 8% over the prior year. And while $31 billion is not a large amount of money compared to the federal budget in 2009 (it was less than one percent of spending in that year), it was 22% of the $140 billion in deficit spending Nutting credits to Obama. Nutting should still have put the blame for those increases on Obama’s shoulders – as he eventually, and rightly, did with stimulus spending.

Third, Nutting cites the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to claim FY 2013 spending is supposed to go down by 1.3%. This is extremely misleading. In citing the CBO, Nutting is looking at the its 2012 baseline report on spending. This report looks at how current law will impact spending and the deficit. However, in the same report, CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario (what I like to call the politically realistic scenario, with explanations of the likely course Congress will take regarding specific tax and spending programs) expects certain spending reductions to be delayed by Congress. These include cuts to doctor payments in Medicare and the sequestration cuts scheduled to take place in 2013. These and other examinations of fiscal reality cause the CBO to note “deficits would average 5.4 percent of GDP over the 2013–2022 period, rather than the 1.5 percent reflected in CBO’s baseline projections.” The CBO also expects the difference in deficits between the baseline report and alternative fiscal scenario to be about two percent of GDP, or over $300 billion in 2013.

Finally, while Nutting’s thesis focuses exclusively on the time President Obama has been in office, it should be pointed out that then-Senator Obama voted for at least two big-ticket items opposed by many Republicans and signed by Bush – TARP and the auto bailouts. While not looking at these is consistent with Nutting’s thesis, it also leads the reader to forget that it takes three to tango in Washington…and by having control of the House and the Senate Senator Obama and his Democratic allies were two of those partners in spending in Fiscal Year 2009.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What’s a budget?

Electrongod on May 23, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Democrats had the purse strings since 2007.

echosyst on May 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM

You left out the biggest whopper of them all — Bush never passed a FY2009 budget. Recall that the Democrats played keep-a-way, refusing to pass any budget until their man Obama was installed. Then with their huge advantages in both Houses, the Democrats passed the FY2009 budget they wanted.

Sorry, but Nutting is Nuts on this one, from start to finish.

Zumkopf on May 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Democrats had the purse strings since 2007.

echosyst on May 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Shhhh we’re not supposed to know that. /

There was a poll around the time of Obama’s election and the majority of Democrats thought the GOP was running Congress. They are not a real smart bunch.

CW on May 23, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Even if TFGP did spend like crazy, he cares so it’s all good.

Bishop on May 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Nutting?

bernverdnardo1 on May 23, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Budget scmudget!

jukin3 on May 23, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Sorry, but Nutting is Nuts on this one, from start to finish.

Zumkopf on May 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Yep. He’s either ignorant or a liar. The only thing Bush had to do with spending in 2009 is he signed the resolution that Dems sent him maintaining 2008 levels that delayed everything until Dems had total control in 2009.

Mark1971 on May 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM

“Are you better off today than you were $5 Trillion dollars ago?”

Seven Percent Solution on May 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Rex Nutting says Americans who think there has been a large increase of federal spending under President Obama’s watch are wrong.

Okay the obvious first. Anybody with the name of Nutting has no business being a quoted expert. Do I have to explain why?

Secondly Mr. Nutting lives up to his name. He truly is nuts. His analysis is all real-time and fails to include the obligations for out years. He’s ignoring (by design) the financial realities of Obamacare and how current policy ignores the looming issues of bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security.

Happy Nomad on May 23, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Nutting?

bernverdnardo1 on May 23, 2012 at 10:15 PM

It’s a part of Dog that Obama saves for last.

Electrongod on May 23, 2012 at 10:20 PM

It’s a part of Dog that Obama saves for last.

Electrongod on May 23, 2012 at 10:20 PM

; )

Bmore on May 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Democrats had the purse strings since 2007.

echosyst on May 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM

THIS
with a little ol’ senator named obama…

lsm tends to forget that…it’s all bush’s fault

cmsinaz on May 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM

What’s a budget?

Electrongod on May 23, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Ding, ding, ding. You hit the daily double.

antipc on May 23, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Jay Carney Lectures Reporters: Don’t ‘Buy into the B.S.’

Another shiny object quickly dispensed with…

… Doing the job the Founders wanted “The Press” to do is fun!

Seven Percent Solution on May 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Another shiny object quickly dispensed with…

… Doing the job the Founders wanted “The Press” to do is fun!

Seven Percent Solution on May 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM

“Do not buy into the B.S. that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration,”….”I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness.” – Jay Carney, Comedian.

Was was Jay about 4 years ago?

Electrongod on May 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM

When all else fails, lie your ass off. At least your loyal goose-steppers will agree with you….in public….until it’s looking like you’re going to lose the election, then all bets are off.

Wolfmoon on May 23, 2012 at 10:30 PM

First “Was” = Where

Electrongod on May 23, 2012 at 10:30 PM

It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

And, you fundamentally misunderstand that THERE WAS NO BUSH FY2009 BUDGET.

Bush signed a CR into law on 30 September 2008. It expired on 6 March 2009. On 11 March 2009, President Obama signed a FY2009 budget into law.

Furthermore, Bush is not responsible for the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Stimulus Act of 2009, the Defence Supplemental of 06.09 loaded with pork, Cash-for-Clunkers, Cash-for-Caulkers, Unemployment Insurance extensions, Making Home Affordable, a massive $680 billion defence bill in September – once again laden with pork, etc.

Resist We Much on May 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

You left out the biggest whopper of them all — Bush never passed a FY2009 budget.

Zumkopf on May 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Presidents don’t pass budgets, Congress does.

Happy Nomad on May 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Just stick with the $5T deficit. It’s easier.

Even easier… $17K per man, woman and child. That’s a car. Every person in America bought a clunker for Obama.

faraway on May 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Bush signed a CR into law on 30 September 2008. It expired on 6 March 2009. On 11 March 2009, President Obama signed a FY2009 budget into law.

Resist We Much on May 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Can an omnibus spending bill be considered a budget?

mdenis39 on May 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM

STOP!….STOP!….you are all on the wrong thread!…

No joke: New White House website offers children lessons on … financial literacy

May 23, 2012 6:41 PM by Allahpundit

…you are ALL being so mean!

KOOLAID2 on May 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Can an omnibus spending bill be considered a budget?

mdenis39 on May 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM

If you Google it, you’ll see that it was refer to in the media at the time as a budget…”Obama signs budget into law”….”Obama signs Omnibus budget into law.”

If you would like, we can say that Obama didn’t sign a budget into law either. That’s fine. My point, however, remains the same. Bush only signed a CR and it expired on 6 March 2009. He also was, obviously, not responsible for the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Stimulus Act of 2009

Resist We Much on May 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Oops…

…not responsible for the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Stimulus Act of 2009, which was appropriated and passed by Democrats and signed into law by Obama prior to 6 March 2009.

Resist We Much on May 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM

‘thesis?’ – that jackhole Nutting’s entire premise is outright propaganda / lies of both omission and commission. It’s FRAUD.

rayra on May 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM

i actually saw a clip of barry saying the same thing in his little squeaky petulant voice.

could not believe it…i mean, i know that leftists always lie…but this is beyond parody. the big jolt of $$$$$ was supposed to kick start the economy…that’s keynes. then you lower spending…that’s keynes.

barry just wanted to spend 24 percent of gdp on bling and votes so he did. but fortunately for him he has a base that is stupid and innumerate..and a double dose of good luck, reporters are part of his base…stupid and innumerate times 2

r keller on May 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM

How pathetic is it that democrats have to lie and cook the books for any of their policies to be successful.

Baxter Greene on May 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Simple reason it is all in credit and spread. You don’t have the full value of the house as spending on year one of a 25 years. The programs are in place that need to be paid in 10 years time for one years worth of the program that starts in year 8.

tjexcite on May 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Resist We Much on May 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Hope you don’t mind but I thought this was worth re-posting.

Debt on 01.19.09: $10,628,881,485,510.23

Debt on 01.20.01: $5,727,776,738,304.64

An increase of:

$4,901,104,747,205.59

Debt 05.01.12: $15,673,229,738,379.98

Debt 01.20.09: $10,626,877,048,913.08

An increase of:

$5,046,352,689,466.90

Bush in office 2,921 days.

Bush deficit spent per day:

$1,677,885,911.40

Obama in office 1,197 days (through 05.01.12).

Obama deficit spends per day:

$4,215,833,491.62

Public debt on 01.20.09:

$6,307,310,739,681.66

Public debt on 05.01.12:

$10,910,025,382,723.66

Obama has increased the nation’s debt held by the public by $4,602,714,643,042 in 1,197 days.

Obama has increased the debt held by the public by 72.97% – SEVENTY-TWO POINT NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT – in 1,197 days.

The $5,046,352,689,466.90 in additional debt that the U.S. government has taken on during the 40 months that Obama has been president is more debt than the Federal government accumulated in the first 219 years of the Republic.

Total Debt = $15,673,229,738,379.98

Total GDP = $15,180,900,000,000.00

Debt-to-GDP = 103.24%

Resist We Much on May 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Baxter Greene on May 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Barry SIGNED the 2009 budget. Nutting obviously has SELECTIVE memory. Perhaps someone should remind him that Nancy-poo did not submit a budget to the WH until Bush left office.

Nice try. Just another EXCUSE maker for Barry.

GarandFan on May 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Democrats had the purse strings since 2007.

echosyst on May 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Shhhh we’re not supposed to know that. /

There was a poll around the time of Obama’s election and the majority of Democrats thought the GOP was running Congress. They are not a real smart bunch.

CW on May 23, 2012 at 10:13 PM

What’s really disturbing is the Downgrade regime is using this “Analysis” to say that other claims of the truth are BS.

And the National Socialist Left wonder’s why we call him the Dear Liar.

Chip on May 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM

it should be pointed out that then-Senator Obama voted for at least two big-ticket items opposed by many Republicans and signed by Bush – TARP and the auto bailouts.

And it should be pointed out that Obama specifically asked Bush to request the second half of the TARP money…

“I felt that it would be irresponsible for me, with the first $350 billion already spent, to enter into the administration without any potential ammunition should there be some sort of emergency or weakening of the financial system.”

- Barack Hussein Obama II
January 13, 2009
U.S. Seeks Rest of Bailout Cash
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123177778175873781.html

So, Bush got all of the blame, but Obama got half the money.

ITguy on May 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM

How pathetic is it that democrats have to lie and cook the books for any of their policies to be successful.

Baxter Greene on May 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

If “successful” means getting elected, I agree completely. However if it means the country succeeds, that hasn’t happened in a long time.

Christian Conservative on May 23, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Rex Nutting’s entire post hinges on the premise that FY 2009 spending is something that Obama inherited from Bush, and that FY 2009 spending becomes the benchline to which later spending should be compared.

Rex wants his readers to believe that FY 2009 spending was already in place when Obama became President…

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

and

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

That is is not true.

When the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 2009 was passed:

1) Which party controlled the House?
2) Which party controlled the Senate?
3) Which President signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 2009?

After answering those questions, tell me if an honest person would attribute to Bush the spending that was done under the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 2009.

I say that if an honest person wants to compare spending between complete Democrat control and complete Republican control, they will compare FY 2009 (complete D control) to FY 2007 (complete R control). Doing that paints a MUCH differnt picture.

ITguy on May 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

….and of course while one of Obama’s knee pad boys spins more economic smoke and mirrors in an attempt to bamboozle voters….another sign of economic disaster continues to grow while the “Hope and Change” crew whistle by the grave yard….
………….surpassing a 100% debt to GDP ratio:

http://www.geckoresearch.com/The_Anatomy_of_Sovereign_Default

It is true that a country never has to pay back all of its outstanding debt. However, it is imperative that investors in the nation’s sovereign debt always maintain the confidence that it has the ability to do so. History has proven that once the debt to GDP ratio reaches circa 100%, economic growth seizes to a halt. The problem being that the debt continues to accumulate without a commensurate increase in the tax base. Once the tax base can no longer adequately support the debt, interest rates rise sharply.

….and here we sit with a stagnant,lifeless economy that democrats think the solution to repair, lies in higher taxes so that the Hill can subsidize their chosen winners.

So much failure coming from the worst President ever.

Baxter Greene on May 23, 2012 at 11:32 PM

What Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats promised in 2006 in order to win the 2006 elections and control of Congress:

Over the past decade, the Republican controlled Congress took our nation in the wrong direction. Too many Americans are paying a heavy price for those wrong choices: record costs for energy, health care and education; jobs shipped overseas; and budgets that heap record debt on our children. For millions, the middle-class dream has been replaced by a middle-class squeeze…

Democrats are proposing a New Direction for America…

With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people….

Our federal budget should be a statement of our national values. One of those values is responsibility. Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline.

Budget discipline has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and its Republican congressional majorities. Congress under Republican control has turned a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus at the end of the Clinton years into a nearly $3 trillion deficit– including the four worst deficits in the history of America. The nation’s debt ceiling has been raised four times in just five years to more than $8.9 trillion. Nearly half of our nation’s record debt is owned by foreign countries including China and Japan. Without a return to fiscal discipline, the foreign countries that make our computers, our clothing and our toys will soon be making our foreign policy. Deficit spending is not just a fiscal problem – it’s a national security issue as well.

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

What Nancy Pelosi promised on January 4, 2007 when she became Speaker of the House:

After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

- New Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 01/04/2007

Pelosi went on to add $5.3 Trillion to the national debt in just 4 years. More debt than had been acumulated under any other House Speaker in history.

ITguy on May 23, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House from January 4, 2007 to January 3, 2011. How much new debt was created during her 4 years as speaker?

Go to Debt to the Penny, and search on the period 1/4/2007 – 1/3/2011.
01/03/2011 $13,997,932,781,828.89
- 01/04/2007 $8,670,596,242,973.04
———————————————–
$5,327,336,538,855.85

Pelosi and the Democrats promised

Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline… no more deficit spending.

And what did they deliver?

In just 4 short years as Speaker, Pelosi added over $5.3 TRILLION in new debt, increasing the total national debt by over 60% in just 4 short years.

And it didn’t end there. Democrats still control the Senate and the Presidency. And therefore, Democrats still have majority control over the budgeting and spending process.

The most recent debt numbers are:
05/15/2012 $15,716,115,612,805.06
- 01/04/2007 $8,670,596,242,973.04
———————————————–
$7,045,519,369,832.02

The 5 worst fiscal year deficits in the history of this country have ALL come at the hands of a Democratic majority in Washington, D.C. after they promised “no more deficit spending”!

Democrats have increased the total national debt by over $7 TRILLION after they promised “no more deficit spending”!

They are LIARS and cannot be trusted.

They promised fiscal discipline and “no more deficit spending”, but have increased the total national debt from $8.67 Trillion to over $15.71 Trillion (an increase of over 81%) in less than 5 and a half years. And they haven’t passed a budget in over 3 years.

Any voter who wants fiscal sanity MUST vote Republican in November.

To vote for a Democrat and expect fiscal discipline is INSANE (doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result).

ITguy on May 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM

If “successful” means getting elected, I agree completely. However if it means the country succeeds, that hasn’t happened in a long time.

Christian Conservative on May 23, 2012 at 11:23 PM

…that’s it…
……it’s all about their quest for money,power,and control.

Baxter Greene on May 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Wow. Who knew the Obama budget was so lean. I remember the budget like it was a mere 3 years ago.

pat on May 24, 2012 at 1:51 AM

Third, Nutting cites the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

The CBO cannot be trusted. When the CBO first scored Obamacare, they labeled it a disaster. For the first time in history, Obama called the president of the CBO to the White House. After that meeting the CBO changed the report to make it look the way Obama wanted it to.

free on May 24, 2012 at 2:54 AM

And, you fundamentally misunderstand that THERE WAS NO BUSH FY2009 BUDGET.

Bush signed a CR into law on 30 September 2008. It expired on 6 March 2009. On 11 March 2009, President Obama signed a FY2009 budget into law.

Furthermore, Bush is not responsible for the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Stimulus Act of 2009, the Defence Supplemental of 06.09 loaded with pork, Cash-for-Clunkers, Cash-for-Caulkers, Unemployment Insurance extensions, Making Home Affordable, a massive $680 billion defence bill in September – once again laden with pork, etc.

Resist We Much on May 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

And the final budget that went to Obama for signature was $400 billion more than what Bush initially proposed. Then there was another $400 billion OMNIBUS spending bill signed by Obama.

It’s ridiculous to blame Bush totally for 2009 spending, but the libs are already doing it on their cable shows.

TarheelBen on May 24, 2012 at 4:48 AM

MarketWatch rewrites history …

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch)
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

Except the FY 2009 budget wasn’t Bush’s, the Congress held it up with continuing resolutions until Obama was sworn in

J_Crater on May 24, 2012 at 6:30 AM

So, Bush got all of the blame, but Obama got half the money.

ITguy on May 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM

and obama got all the “credit” for the “job creation”. all 5 of them.

t8stlikchkn on May 24, 2012 at 6:53 AM

Our media wouldn’t know a truth if it fell over one. I lost their trust years ago when they’ll put anyone under a microscope looking for any hair they question, not truths just anything that has a remote possibility of a sin according to their liberal philosophy while completely ignoring and covering a truth that denies them the power they seek. They wonder why newspapers are folding shut and their main stream media is laughed at in the polls and research groups. Many have also lost their trust in the FoxNews networks also where they clip the truths to their liking. Anyone with a brain can surf the net for news and be better informed than an editor that has an agenda to defend.

mixplix on May 24, 2012 at 6:59 AM

AH if you put the stimulus in the budget of 2009 and now becomes baseline well hell yes over the next few years the increase in spending seems small but the deficit is NOT!

tim c on May 24, 2012 at 7:36 AM

This is part of the problem in America…too many people are incapable of understanding their governments actions…thinking they’ll understand the details of the federal budget is naive…the Dem’s can throw any numbers out they want and they don’t have to be the least bit accurate…but the one number they cannot run from is Obama’s record piling on of debt. This elections is easy if the Republicans condense it – Record debt, profligate spending and waste, high unemployment and rotten economic activity.

insidiator on May 24, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Money…heh…it’s only paper…

PatriotRider on May 24, 2012 at 8:14 AM

So, you create an unsustainable baseline and then increase spending each year on top of that and … POOF … all is well! Ahhhhhh. We know the media types are stupid enough to buy that, but could the American voter be that idiotic, as well? Stay tuned…

littleguy on May 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM

What Rommney or PACs need to do is list all the energy programs and the amount of money and who got the grants and compare them to who raised and bundled money for Obama. The media will never print it so I think an ad on this would be great. Also, a graph or whatever that shows the spending and the huge debt would make a great ad. I think that Rommeny should fight this by buying ads on these items as it is the only way that the public will get the information.

HOOLiBAR6 on May 24, 2012 at 10:05 AM

The little event of 9 1 1 resulted in securing federal buildings, air transportation security. Blame Bush for that too.

democratsarefools on May 24, 2012 at 10:43 AM

If you want a glimpse into what goes into the “thought process” of a typical Obamaphile, read the comments following the ABC article that discusses Nutting’s “conclusions.” The only way – the only way– that anyone can continue to support the inept, incompetent, egotistical, empty-suit that is Obama is to sit and wait for the eagerly complicit media to twist the truth and spoon feed it to his similarly intellectually challenged supporters. They will eat it up and nothing will convince them that their positions are based on inaccuracies and lies. Someone once said that you cannot reason someone out of a position that they reached through emotions and that would be an apt description of the fools who end up voted for this moron.

natasha333 on May 24, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Aargh – correcting: “. . . an apt description of the fools who end up voting for this moron.” It is suitably humbling to describe a moron while using a sentence that includes a typo. Apologies.

natasha333 on May 24, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Well, well, well. From “Bush Did It” all the way to “Bush Made Me Do It.”

Pathetic.

BigAlSouth on May 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

What about the fact that Congress controls the purse strings and the Dems were in control starting with the 2006 elections.

I get so fed up when I hear about spending under this and that President… the “Clinton surplus”… dont you mean the Republican Congress surplus?

AndrewsDad on May 24, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Does ANYONE really believe the Democrats are for spending cuts????

(Breitbart) SEN. REID BLOCKS BAN ON $4 BILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TAX CREDIT LOOPHOLE

DixT on May 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM

AndrewsDad on May 24, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I agree with you in general… I attribute “credit”/”blame” to the party which controlled a majority (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

Clinton wrongly gets credit for what was done by the Republican House and Senate.

And Bush wrongly gets blame for what was done in 2007 and 2008 by the Democrat House and Senate.

But back to the “surplus” issue… there are too many games and gimmicks played in Washington, D.C. … I look at the bottom line of how much new debt was added to the national debt in a fiscal year. If there had actually been a “surplus”, the total national debt would have gone down.

Do you know when was the last Fiscal Year when the total national debt actually went down?

FY 1957

But I’d gladly take the Republican majority deficit in FY 2000 of $17 Billion instead of the Democrat majority deficit in FY 2009 of $1,885 Billion ($1.885 Trillion).

ITguy on May 24, 2012 at 12:35 PM

(Breitbart) SEN. REID BLOCKS BAN ON $4 BILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TAX CREDIT LOOPHOLE

DixT on May 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM

In my opinion it appears that Harry Reid would not have been re-elected if it were not for the votes of illegal immigrants.

ITguy on May 24, 2012 at 12:42 PM